The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-11-03

he IS StllI quallhed as a Juror, II ne
states that he can fairly and i'm
partially render a verdict thereon in
accordance with law and evidence, and
the Court shall be satisfied of the truth
of said statement. tits not test ques-
opinion which he has formed from
newspapers changed by evidence. but
whether his verdict will be based only
upon an account which may here be
given by witnesses under oath. Inter
preted in this way the statute is not
| materially different from that of the
Territory of Utah, which he had under
consideration in Hopt vs.. Utah supra,
aad to which we then gave
effect. AS that was a ter
ritorial statute passed by s
Territorial legislature for the govern
ment of a Territory over which the
United States had exclusive Jurisdiction
it came directly within the operation Of
! article 6 of the amendment, which
guaranteed to Hopt a trial by an i'm
partial jury. No one at the time sug
gested doubt of the constitutionality
of the statute, and it was regarded both
| in the Territorial courts and here as
furnishing proper rule to be observed
by the Territorial court in empanelling
AL LII pal G1nl Jul III q CooC.
Indeed, the rule of the statute of Hi
nois, as it was construed by the trial
court, was not materially different f. ON
that which has been adopted by
courts in many of the States, without
legislative action. Without pursuing
this subject further, il is sufficient to
say that we agree entirely with the
| Supreme Court of Illinois in the opinion
| that the statute on its face, as con-
strued. by that court, is not repugnant
to section 8, article 2, of the Constitu
| ton of that State, which guarantees o
an accused party IN every criminal pros
ecution speedy trial by an impartisl
| jury of the county or district, in which
the otfense is alleged to have been com
mitted. AS this is substantially the pro
| vision OF the Constitution of the United
States on which the petitioners now
rely, it follows that even if their posi-
| ton as to the operation and effect of
that Constitution is correct, the statute
is not open to the objection which is
made against it."
The court then reviewed efully the
proceedings of the State Court in the
examination of jurors Denker and San
Judge Gary, in the matter, touching
the challenge of these two jurors by
! the defendants for cause. In Reynolds
VS.. United States 98, United States
Laws. 145 to 156, it was decided by this
Court that in order to just fy reversal
of judgment of the Supreme Court of
| the Territory of Utah Tor refusing to
allow a challenge to juror in q
criminal case on the ground that he
| had formed and expressed an opinion
as to the issues to be tried, it will
be made clearly to appear that upon
evidence, the Court ought to have
found the juror had formed such an
opinion, aad that he could in law be
deemed impartial, the case must be one
in which it is manifest the law left
nothing to the conscience or discretion
of the Court. If such is the degree OF
strlctness which is required in ordinary
cases of writs from one court to another
in the same general jurisdiction, VT
ought to be careful that it is not relaxed
in case like this, when the ground re-
lied on for reversal by this Court OF
the judgment of the Highest court oil
a State, is that the error complained OF
is so great as to amount in law to "a de-
NAL by the State Of trial by an i'm
partial jury to one who is accused q
crime. We are unhesitatingly of the
1
by this record.
| We come now to consider the obiec
ton that defendant, Spies was compelled
by the Court to be a witness agsinst
himself. He voluntarily offered him.
self as witness, on his own behalf, and
by so doing be became bound to submit
himself to proper crOss-examination.
The complaint is that he was re-
| quired, on cross-eXamination, to
state whether he had received
a certain letter which was shown,
purporting to have been written by
Johann Most, and addressed to him,
and upon his saying that he had, the
Court allowed the letter to be read in
evidence against him. This, 1t is
claimed, was not proper cross-exami-
nation. 1t is not contended that the
subject to which the cross-ezsmination
related was not pertinent to the issue
to be tried, and whether a cross-exami-
nation must be confined to matters per
tinent to the testimony in chief, or may
be extended to matters in issue, is GER
tainly q question OF State law, in
courts OF State. and not OF Federal
law. Something has been said in the
argument aboutan alleged unreasonable
search and seizure of papers aud pro-
|
and their uye in evidence on the trial OF
the case. Special reference is made in
this connection to the letter OF Most,
about which Spies was cross-examined
but we have not been referred to any
part of tn record in which it appears
that objection was made to the use OF
the evidence on that account, and upon
this point the Supreme Court of the
State, in that part OF its opinion which
has been printed with this motion, re
marks as follows: the objection that
the letter was obtained from defendant
by an unlawful seizure is made for th {
first time IN this court. It was not
made on the trial in the court Lelow.
Such an objection as this, which is
not suggested BY the nature Oh
offered evidence, but depends upon
proof of an outside fact, should be
made on the trial. The defense should
nave proved tha- Mos5's letter was one
of tn letters Iucgany seized by the
police, and should then have excluded
or opposed It's admission, on the ground
that 1t was obtained by such illegal
seizure. This was not done, and the-t-
| fore we cannot consider the constitu-